In
March I wrote about the CancelColbert hash tag. This included a reference to Suey Park's interview with Josh
Zepps, and the way he condescended to her, talked over her, and called her
opinion stupid right before she cut the interview short.
As
I was writing about attempts to silence women, I had been thinking about Zepps'
attitude a lot, and just as I posted, there it was in my timeline again.
It
came from Nick Katkevich, asking first about Zepps not being fired, and then if
he had ever apologized to Suey: " As a fellow white bro, I know it's hard to
reflect on our privilege, but its got to be done"
Zepps:
It does. I reflect constantly on my privilege. The solution to bigotry is
robust dialog, not pouting censoriousness.
Me:
That's why talking over her telling you about her experience, instead of
listening to her, was so rotten.
New
person (over 2 tweets, errors are his):
she
didn't relay her experience she spent 5 minutes insulting anyone that was white
1/2
and
then when shut down acted all offended and refused to expalin why. 2/2
Me:
Seeing his mind was closed, and it was, she moved on. Feel free to do the same.
The
reason that I think this is kind of perfect is that the new guy is telling me
what I saw, even though I saw it. Of course he's on Zepps' side!
I
did rewatch the interview, because I am conscientious like that, and I stand by
my previous evaluation.
First
of all, I notice that Zepps quoted the foundation name, knowing that was
repeating the offensive language, and he seems to enjoy doing it. I had not
picked up on that the first time.
Secondly,
the tweet he uses from Park specifically says that they are going for an
apology, not cancellation, and her first response is really talking about why
you use severe language (like "cancel") to get a response.
Next
up is Zepps asking if she understands satire, which is a remarkably
condescending question, but I will have more to say on that later. Park
nonetheless gives a reasonable response about how you should punch up instead
of down with humor.
Zepps
asks whether it doesn't make more sense to go after Snyder than Colbert, and Park
refers to her efforts in that area. This is where she first mentions white
people, though it is specifically white liberals, and says that there are
things they can do and that the backlash is more this feeling that they can't
have fun anymore, which I think is an accurate assessment.
In
giving that background, Park refers to the term "orientalism" which
is a real concept that refers to real things that continue to be an issue, but
Zepps calls the term stupid, and that it would be silly to get mad over the use
of the word. He probably means it would be silly to object to the use of the
word "Oriental" while she is talking about people doing the things
that would fall under "orientalism", but then he needs to point out
that it wasn't Colbert himself, it was the show's PR, which is not that strong
a point, and talks over her some more.
(A
lot of his points are things I addressed in my original post, which I will link
to at the end.)
This
is where Park points out that as a white male he is not in a position to
understand how people of color might feel about it. Zepps interrupts again to
say that being white doesn't mean he can't think, Park calls him out for being
patronizing, Zepps tells her she can have an opinion but it's a stupid opinion.
At
this point Park tells him that she is not going to enact the labor, and why,
and the interview ends.
Responding
to my new friend, this is not five minutes of insulting whites. (I am a white
liberal, if anyone was wondering.)
Telling
me that I do not understand racism the same way that someone who experiences it
is accurate. The truth can be used as an insult, but I don't think that's the
case here, and I doubt it would have been said at all if Zepps had been
offering any respect. Judging only by this interaction I would say Zepps is a
horrible interviewer, but maybe he is more respectful with men.
Actually,
listening respectfully to all people might be a good point for Zepps, but there
were two different points I had in mind. One came from a later segment, and I
remember hearing him ask whether he can't have an opinion about women or racial
minorities, or something outside his experience. I believe he pointed out that
he is a minority in one way, being gay.
There
are lots of straight people with opinions about gay men, are those opinions
more relevant than the personal experience of those who actually are homosexual?
Talking over someone to tell them why they are wrong about their life and their
feelings before they even have a chance to tell you where they are coming from
is rude, of course, but it is also arrogant and shortsighted, and really
surprising for someone who makes his living as an interviewer on a network
other than Fox.
Many
people looked down on Park's ending the interview. I have seen people refuse to
engage, and it often seems abrupt; there are two things to remember. One, and
there were some links about this Wednesday, is that activists, especially
women, get a lot of abuse, which takes a toll. They have a right to decide how
they are going to spend their energy. It is important as a matter of self-care,
and it is important as a matter of effectiveness. I found a quote that is
helpful recently:
"The
function, the very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from
doing your work. It keeps you explaining over and over again, your reason for
being. Somebody says you have no language, so you spend twenty years proving
that you do. Somebody says your head isn't shaped properly, so you have
scientists working on the fact that it is. Somebody says you have no art, so
you dredge that up. Somebody says you have no kingdoms, so you dredge that up.
None of that is necessary. There will always be one more thing." -- Toni Morrison
That's
not to say that it is always intentional racist derailment, but they may not be
interested enough to listen, or even if you could get somewhere, it still might
not be the best use of what is always limited time.
I
have tried engaging a few times, when someone else had stopped. Usually, they
just don't want to understand.
One
woman, after not getting the response she wanted from one activist (not Park), started claiming
abuse and warning people, because she had started getting all of these spam
messages and email problems, which clearly meant that they were malicious
hackers targeting her now. This happened right around the time of Heartbleed.
I
knew, but did not come right out and say, that even if the person she was mad
at was capable of wreaking all this havoc, this woman was not worth the effort.
Instead, I told her about Heartbleed, because it is good to know that
information, and she was clearly not computer savvy. She eventually accepted
that she had not been sabotaged, but she remained offended. After all, when she
accused them of attacking her computer, they did not take her seriously at all!
Was
that worth my time? If she changed her passwords and it somehow saved her bank
account, maybe, but it was really irritating. Fortunately, I am not prominent,
I don't have anyone trolling me, and I am not overextended at this time (though
this last week has come close). That's not true for everyone.
I
have noticed lately that worse things are happening more frequently. It wears
you down. For anyone who decides that it is not worth speaking out, I can't
blame them. If someone decides to take a hiatus, I understand. For now, I am
here.
For
that other bit of condescension though, that really needs it's own piece.
Tomorrow we talk about understanding satire.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment